What was the mood in the Soviet space program when astronauts from Apollo 11 landed on the moon?
It was very similar to feeling among Americans when Gagarin went into orbit. Some of them tried to ignore it, some of them were insulted. But I don't think it had a strong popular effect. First of all, the Soviet propaganda did not play it up or give too much information. I remember I watched a documentary on this. It was not secret, but it was not shown to the public. The Russian people had many problems in day-to-day life, they were not too concerned about the first man on the moon.
Was Russia pretty close?
The Russians were not pretty close. I think Russia had no chance to be ahead of the Americans under Sergei Korolev and his successor, Vasili Mishin. [Sergei Korolev was the leader of the Russian space program who, with Mishin overseeing the development of the rocket, succeeded in launching Sputnik 1. He died in January 1966.—Editor's Note]
Korolev was not a scientist, not a designer: he was a brilliant manager. Korolev's problem was his mentality. His intent was to somehow use the launcher he had. [The launcher was called N1]. It was designed in 1958 for a different purpose and with a limited payload of about 70 tons.] His philosophy was, let's not work by stages [as is usual in spacecraft design], but let's assemble everything and then try it. And at last it will work. There were several attempts and failures with Lunnik [a series of unmanned Soviet moon probes]. Sending man to the moon is too complicated, too complex for such an approach. I think it was doomed from the very beginning.
Of course, you must understand that I am speaking from the point of a competitor. We worked with our own project, [at] the Chelomei design bureau. Maybe we were more realistic. But I don't think we would have been able to beat the Americans.
When talking about the Russian space program, there is a misconception in the West that it was centralized. In reality, it was more decentralized than in the United States, which had one focused Apollo program. In the Soviet Union, there were different designers who competed with one another.
What was your father's perspective on Apollo 11? Did you discuss with him the American moon landing over the years?
My father's reaction was he couldn't understand why Korolev failed in this race. And of course I gave him my opinion why. My father did not discuss [the moon landing] too much. He listened to me. He was very proud of Sputnik; he wrote about it in his memoirs.
What are your thoughts about renewed efforts to go to the moon?
The Apollo project was a political project. Now we are under very different circumstances. Also, a big difference is technological achievement. At that time, we were at the beginning of the age of [space] automation, discovery and research. Now we have all this, starting from the spectacular achievements of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Mars rovers, etc. I would give priority to automated vehicles, not manned spaceflight.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentThis is an article? Please..it belongs on page 5 of Pravda. There is no perception and depth here..nothing.I could tell you a lot more about what it was like in my apartment room down to what I was eating. I saw plenty of film newsreels as were common then of people standing in front of TVs in Moscow so they were very energised by the landing. This is not a good reflection of how people felt in USSR nor anywhere else. He sounds technologically primitive in fact...typical of his field. I would not admit it if I were he that he is so naive about science. Backyard telescope indeed. Further, as we now know, the US avoided a military launch of a satellite as they were burned by the U-2 overflights and wanted the USSR to overfly the US with a satellite first so that they could all agree to a treaty to permit the free and peaceful use of space including overflights which thus allowed the US to engage in high technology surveillance flights of satellites ( and men) with no repercussions. Eisenhower took the blame of the nation for going slow on the satellite process but in the end it was the smart thing to do. See Sputnik DeClassified, a NOVA program on line to find out more about this era.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember when Russia first launched humans into space, when I was about ten years old. Many in the US downplayed it or were resentful that the Soviets had done it first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven at the age of ten, my reaction was that the most important thing was that humans were in space, regardless of which nation put them there.
In the end, I believe we should celebrate any achievement in space as a human achievement.
Mr. Krushchev points out correctly that our early space programs were politically motivated. Today, I think we have come to see things differently.
I am an American who was younger than 10 when Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth. At the time my parents told me that it was all Russian propaganda, that it didn't really happen at all. Within a few years, I noticed, they stopped saying that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the Moon landing occurred, I happened to be a 15-year-old summer student in Spain, with no access to television. When I heard the news, I was very excited, and began discussing the landing in Spanish with a variety of fellow students, none of whom were American. Their general attitude seemed to be, so what, you Americans just want to show off. I do remember that one of our teachers (a Spaniard) congratulated the American students in class, but outside of the classroom, another faculty member said to me, in excellent English, "Now that you're on the Moon, what will you do with it?" His remarks proved prescient.
My lesson from all of the above was that, at least during the 1960s, one's reaction to the various triumphs of space exploration were heavily tinged by nationality. (Today I might say "nationality, culture, and politics.") Even though Armstrong stated that he did what he did for all humanity, most humans at the time seemed rather skeptical about the meaning and value of his achievement. I believe that this widespread skepticism was consistent with the growing antiwar and antinuclear movements of the time. In the late 1960s, and doubtless at various points since then, American technological achievements were perceived as militarily motivated and not in the best interests of peace or the global environment.
What, more than 12 hours since publication and no one has yet claimed that the Moon landings were faked, etc.? It's usually faster than this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, in this article, we have a witness saying that Nikita Khrushchev knew that it was for real.
Khrushchev was the one man who would have had the most to gain by exposing any hoax... and he also had the means to uncover any subterfuge.
But there was no hoax to be exposed, and he knew it. He even let Pravda mention the Moon landing on its front page.
what an imbecil. shouldnt be here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJ.O.Motta
You are interviewing the wrong guy. Why not take some time to find someone who knew Sergei Pavlovich Korolev? He was the real genius and competitor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSergei Khrushchev is only a son of dad. Scientific American should have more commitment with the real history.
I totally agree with nfiertel and others. Where is the article? Where is the meaning? What was this? Oh, I get it. It was just another excuse to load a page with more ads, that's what it was. SA, you dropped a notch with me. I can find more indepth science news on a box of ceral.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with nfiertel and others. Where is the article? Where is the meaning? What was this? Oh, I get it. It was just another excuse to load a page with more ads, that's what it was. SA, you dropped a notch with me. I can find more in depth science news on a box of ceral.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the Spaniards that didn't get it, I'll quote JFK, "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." To the rest of the word, we did come in peace for all mankind. We did it to inspire the world to turn into the tough problems, not to turn away from them.
I agree - robots not people. Cost is much lower, and danger is not a factor. Results should improve with new technology. We do not need immediate results. Is it worth a possible loss of several people and the spending of billions to find a new form of rock or build a far-side telescope in a rushed program, when over time robots could achieve the same? Also, contamination of the atmosphere would be much less in a robot-based program, a factor not often discusses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was 14 and filled with wonder while I watched the event. I could have cared less about politics or anything else other then what a magnificent technological acheivement this was. I had a 4 inch reflector telescope set up outside and watched the moon the whole time hoping to catch a glimpse of a reflection from the orbiter. Wasn't going to happen but I hoped. I don't see anything negative here. To me, in the end nothing else matters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm in my final year of school and I'm researching the space race and the ways of thinking involved, and this response has really helped me consolidate my understanding! Just wanted to say thank you for that - I'm on 16, so I wasn't around during the Cold War, so this has helped me so much!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you!